Unitech Exhibition Private Limited Vs DCIT (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court recently delivered a judgment in the case of Unitech Exhibition Private Limited versus the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), setting aside a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the reopening of an assessment. The Court’s decision underscored the principles of ‘change of opinion’ and the stringent conditions for reassessment notices issued after the expiry of the normal four-year limitation period.
Case Genesis
The petitioner, Unitech Exhibition Private Limited, approached the High Court challenging a reassessment notice dated March 20, 2020, and a subsequent order dated September 3, 2021, which overruled the company’s objections against the reopening. The original assessment for the relevant year had been completed earlier under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on March 4, 2016.
The primary grounds for challenging the reassessment were twofold: first, that the notice for reopening was issued after the expiry of the normal four-year limitation period; and second, that the basis for reopening was merely a ‘change of opinion’ on the part of the Assessing Officer (AO), which is not permissible under settled law.
Assessee’s Stance
During the proceedings, the counsel for Unitech Exhibition Private Limited highlighted that the original assessment under Section 143(3) was a detailed process. It was specifically recorded in the assessment order that all information requested by the tax authorities was duly furnished by the petitioner for the completion of the assessment.
